The Snapshot wrote:Criticism does not equal insight. Chemistry is not a science in sports, so the term is probably misplaced, but the chemistry is off. That I'll agree on. The system is a good one if executed properly. The lack of adherence to it is an issue - which I guess you can blame on the coach, even though some of the best players are the worst offenders on the bad nights.

"Passive" PK is not a correct description of the PK system, yet I see it said on here over and over. The PK system is designed to pressure at appropriate times and then retreat to an active box when the team gains full control and possession. What the Pens have executed well in the past is designed to prevent prolonged control by denying entry and then pressuring whenever control is tenuous. It works, if executed.

The system defensively is still predicated more on possession than it is on allowing possession. It works as well, if executed properly.

Letang is capable of games like last night. In fact when he is playing well these games are more the norm. This system allows for him to play his game, and he just needs to play better. That can be said for every player on this team. The only thing I see as miscast in this system is the 4th line. Two guys there are just not fast enough to consistently wear the other team down in their own end.

The rest of the players just need to play better. Fire the coach, but the players play.

4 assists must negate his horrible defensive play on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th goals

The Snapshot wrote:Criticism does not equal insight. Chemistry is not a science in sports, so the term is probably misplaced, but the chemistry is off. That I'll agree on. The system is a good one if executed properly. The lack of adherence to it is an issue - which I guess you can blame on the coach, even though some of the best players are the worst offenders on the bad nights.

"Passive" PK is not a correct description of the PK system, yet I see it said on here over and over. The PK system is designed to pressure at appropriate times and then retreat to an active box when the team gains full control and possession. What the Pens have executed well in the past is designed to prevent prolonged control by denying entry and then pressuring whenever control is tenuous. It works, if executed.

The system defensively is still predicated more on possession than it is on allowing possession. It works as well, if executed properly.

Letang is capable of games like last night. In fact when he is playing well these games are more the norm. This system allows for him to play his game, and he just needs to play better. That can be said for every player on this team. The only thing I see as miscast in this system is the 4th line. Two guys there are just not fast enough to consistently wear the other team down in their own end.

The rest of the players just need to play better. Fire the coach, but the players play.

4 assists must negate his horrible defensive play on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th goals

He didn't let up the soft rebounds on those goals. The goalie has a job too.

The Snapshot wrote:Criticism does not equal insight. Chemistry is not a science in sports, so the term is probably misplaced, but the chemistry is off. That I'll agree on. The system is a good one if executed properly. The lack of adherence to it is an issue - which I guess you can blame on the coach, even though some of the best players are the worst offenders on the bad nights.

"Passive" PK is not a correct description of the PK system, yet I see it said on here over and over. The PK system is designed to pressure at appropriate times and then retreat to an active box when the team gains full control and possession. What the Pens have executed well in the past is designed to prevent prolonged control by denying entry and then pressuring whenever control is tenuous. It works, if executed.

The system defensively is still predicated more on possession than it is on allowing possession. It works as well, if executed properly.

Letang is capable of games like last night. In fact when he is playing well these games are more the norm. This system allows for him to play his game, and he just needs to play better. That can be said for every player on this team. The only thing I see as miscast in this system is the 4th line. Two guys there are just not fast enough to consistently wear the other team down in their own end.

The rest of the players just need to play better. Fire the coach, but the players play.

4 assists must negate his horrible defensive play on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th goals

He didn't let up the soft rebounds on those goals. The goalie has a job too.

The 2nd goal was no fault of Vokouns... Gallagher (Letang's man) walked right out to the net and put a shot into TV's pad, a well placed shot for a rebound by Orpik's unguarded man.

1st goal - bad rebound but the defenseman (44/58) were standing next to their guys... it's ok to actually tie them up you know

4th goal - questionable goaltending but WHY was letang chasing behind the net wih 3 seconds left and WHY did PK walk into the slot uncontested?

columbia wrote:I'd like to hear someone make a coherent argument for this team - as is - winning the Stanley Cup.

Do you mean PLAYING as is, or winning as is? They are different questions. Nobody in their right mind thinks they win the Cup playing like they have the last stretch of games.

Also, I don't know anyone (myself included) who is saying to stand pat. I would like a physical, dependable Dman and I'd like at least 1 4th line winger type with more speed and size. I am OK with proceeding with BB as the candidate to grow into top 6 minutes shortly, and then look for help if he doesn'y show progress.

columbia wrote:More direct:I want to hear the argument that another coach can lead this team to the Cup, because I don't see it happening (regardless of who is behind the bench).

The idea that they have any other option than to add a piece or two, hope the chemistry works and begin to focus more as a team on being one half stride safer in their decision making is ridiculous.

If Crosby, Letang and Malkin want to continue to make some of the decisions they have - then only a coach who will come in and bench them will have any impact. The benching of them could very easily backfire as well.

The change the coach crowd is twisting at windmills. The ONLY recipe we have that can result in anything is to button down on the ice and add a pinch of salt or a tbsp of baking soda.

Mr. Colby wrote:A 7-6 win is a **** embarrassment. You leave there thanking your lucky stars that you have enough talent to bury 7 and that the other team's keeper played like dog ****

Montreal would say the same if they had gotten the W. It was a crap game for both goalies. Both teams scored goals that shouldn't have been there.

It's different if it only happens every once in a while.

Montreal had given up 4 or more goals only 3 other times this season (4, 5, and 6) to the Pens 3 times in the previous 5 games (4, 6, 6)

Montreal is not going win a Cup. Different expectations there.

This team has most of pieces to win, and to now they are not playing strongly. I agree with that. Just don't get the panic 20 games in that some here are throwing around. Those folks in general have no real solution other than to fire the coach and magically change the script.

By the way, our goalie has to be REALLY bad to give up 6 to them. We have the talent to score 7. They do not. That could be the D, but more likely it's the goalie when they only get 35 shots and he posts a sub .850 save % against a lineup like theirs.

If a fan thinks that winning in the regular season is this team's expectation-- they'd see no problems with the current situation. Why, the team is winning aren't they? They are top of division, aren't they?

If a fan thinks that challenging for a Cup is this team's expectation-- they'd be worried. Since they'd know that playing firehouse hockey doesn't win in the playoffs when the teams you play there actually have enough offensive talent to beat you in those types of games.

Taking that second stance, you would be further emboldened by remembering the last few playoff debacles (instead of ignoring them and pretending they are separate from this team).

The whole idea that suggesting a new coach without suggesting alternatives is such a fallacy.

1. There's no **** way to know who is available (and willing) to take the job2. It's not who it is, it's just that it's someone new. This cannot be emphasized enough. What the **** resume did Dan Bylsma have before taking over? None. He was a new voice that the players cared to listen to.

Any further "Well you can't say you want a new coach and not suggest one" comments are now debunked

columbia wrote:So no accountability for the high priced superstars?Despite all that money, no requirement to play the game the right way?

Jesus, my 3rd grade social studies class had more rigorous standards for success.

It is the coach's fault that $65M in players can't play defense as a team. Somebody will come in as a new coach and magically transform them into a defensive juggernaut. He plays all 18 skating positions and goal.

The team is at fault for sure. I am not blind to the fact that the playoffs starting tomorrow would be disasterous, but it's on our world-class talents to play the right way and let their talents show within the system.

Mr. Colby wrote:The whole idea that suggesting a new coach without suggesting alternatives is such a fallacy.

1. There's no **** way to know who is available (and willing) to take the job2. It's not who it is, it's just that it's someone new. This cannot be emphasized enough. What the **** resume did Dan Bylsma have before taking over? None. He was a new voice that the players cared to listen to.

Any further "Well you can't say you want a new coach and not suggest one" comments are now debunked

So glad you are not the GM, because saying "they just need a new voice" is ok for a Pee Wee program, but this is the NHL and there are $65M worth of players who according to you and others are tuning out a coach many of them won a Cup with. The answer is not to get a new voice.....a nameless/faceless, new voice. I never realized that the AHL and ECHL were filled with so many future Cup winning coaches.

By the way, when Bylsma was hired they were well into a full season and teetering on not even making the playoffs. They also had stopped scoring and generally played lethargic hockey. This is not a remotely similar circumstance.

They need to reign things in as a team. They could use a few shrewd additions for specific roles as well, but this would be monumentally panicky to pick "a new voice" now for the sake of it.

But we've all been around the game long enough to know that the coach is the fall guy.

Stop acting like I'm arguing with you over whether to blame the coaches or the players.

Then stop saying goofy things like "we need a new voice". That seems to be blaming the coach, and forgive me if that makes me lump you in with the other high hockey IQ folks who want to replace the coach and write their blog about it.